Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 18, 2014 11:00am-11:31am PDT

11:00 am
interest or ordinance violation secondly, if you go back to our records for two years the ethics commission executive director sent outliers saying they wouldn't go follow-up on the seven hundred form filings there wasn't enough funding to take care of with the fact they didn't file their 7 this was for 3 years and finally there's a letter saying you no longer need to provide accident ethics commission with reports on contracts that's an important conflict of interest issue but there was insufficient resources at the commission to review those things so the commissioner own records said you lack the resources to do the jobs assigned by the voters. >> thank you.
11:01 am
>> i'm bob plant hold. because containing has focused on finding one a i want to indicate there maybe instances a underwriter to follow up on complaints because of the confli confidentiality i know if the grand jury saw the clamentsz but the public was told when you file a complaint not to make it public i did file with the term of the grand jury a complaint of an official misconduct others complaints i've filed normally has some answer we're not going to investigate or whatever other complaints have had a responded
11:02 am
ever 2 months. this one no. so it raises the question do you have enough resources to official misconduct it allows some of the thoughts of people there's politics involved this person is influential within city government but if i was asked by the grand jury about filing complaints yo know about the complaint of official misconduct. but the fact there's a a longer lack of resources makes we question whether the lack of resources saying this has merit or unfounded or this should be sent somewhere else because they didn't cite it didn't mean there
11:03 am
are situations where according to non-practice a timeline of response. >> commissioner haney. >> mr. chair following up on what the speaker said he makes a good point for us, you know, our language to the grand jury to essentially tell them in a way you haven't shown us give us a list chapter and versus of all sorts of see situations we should have taken on and done or else you're wrong about us not having the resources. i think not only an unseemly way to react to our language of what they're saying but kind of
11:04 am
juvenile. it is kind of that petulant defensive that is enjittered by people they feel like they've been personally under attack. how is the public to know what we haven't done and how is the public to prove to us we haven't done something when much of the - many aspects of the process itself was indicated by the speaker the public isn't allowed to be aware of because if there's going to be public complaints against someone it can be come down if it's made public so definitely whatever we do i think just for our own self-self-worth we should delete that language in our response we're telling the grand jury you
11:05 am
haven't proved your case to us tell us about some actions i don't know that language is in there it is kind of puts us in an unfortunate light. >> you want to make a motion. >> yes. >> that we redraft that. >> yes. i do. >> my motion would follow-up on what i've said reinforcing before in regards to that paragraph as to one a we san diego and goes on to chase tis the grand jury for not citing specifics i'll take that whole thing out and our response to that we agree that the ethics commission lacks sufficient resources to handle much of its
11:06 am
work. it's necessary as the chair indicated it fails to specifically address those specifics with the grand jury puts there as an example put that language in so the resources to handle is most of its work that includes major enforcement cases cases alleging misconduct and the language in the paragraph >> what about the last sentence in one a you want that deleted? >> i'd leave that in there this is appropriate in terms of the commission saying we had this commission like many agencies in
11:07 am
have full resources just that language itself contradicts what we're doing fine we have plenty of phone number money leave that in while the ethics commission awhile agencies does not have the full resources to carry out its mission its productive because the commission the staff is productive and does a good job to the extent that it can. >> you want to just strike the first sentence. >> yes strike the first sentence and. >> and strike disagree. >> i'm going to read what this with the second sentence the finding one a our response while
11:08 am
the ethics commission acknowledges like many agencies that it didn't is not have the full resources, etc. etc. and just use have that sentence does that makes sense to all of you this is >> you're saying agree and then that statement. >> i don't know are we going to use the words agree and discharge. >> we have to okay agree and followed by that sentence. again while the ethics commission acknowledges like many agencies it doesn't have full resources, etc. etc. >> right. i accept that as >> okay. >> and part of that as the motion. >> so your motion is as read by commissioner hayon and your
11:09 am
seconding. >> yeah. >> the public comment on that particular - yes. >> i have not submitted moisten well, i have something presented to the ethics commission of trying to get a record. when i didn't get - when the others saw the people that should respond said they agreed with me and would respond they never respond. well, does that mean i have to come back and get nothing done?. it seems like that some action can be taken sort of a if you go
11:10 am
investigation maybe a referral to some other agency you can say we don't have staff to do this but we think the district attorney should investigate. but the two things i've brought that i put a lot of work into presenting a case one was to the grand jury of alameda county they made a pitch to the public submit our complaints i didn't get any acknowledgment. i found other people had gotten action times when i investigated the process it seems like the complaints that are address to the grand jury were first submitted to the district attorney. and the complaint i made was
11:11 am
very severe about the transportation agency. and corruption there. and the party that was involved and the agency that was corrupt was the same parties as the district attorney. and it would reflect on their ability to get collections in the identification were made. so it is difficult to figure out how to protect confidence and how to make a consent case it isn't a political corruption that's holding up the legislation i've gotten a similar situation of providing data that took a lot of times on my part i'll show i, do better
11:12 am
in the first line of presenting things than the enforcement agency because i wasn't in direct controversy with them they couldn't make the pitch i was fighting i was ask them for closer and consistent of their actions. so i think we're putting a lot of attendance on a good process forgetting the laws enforced rather than the excuses >> thank you very much. we have the motion pending yes? >> ray for open government i want to thank commissioner keane and commissioner andrews that is a typical defensive and thing
11:13 am
that we find fault with the grand jury that way people will be sdrurlgd from looking at us i think the phrasing has to be carefully considered given the fact you're limited in resources everybody is limited in their resources nobody has as much as and would like the question is what do you do with the resources i go to commissioner hayons comments it's your policy to determine what the staff does with the resources. i'd like to see the question discussed especially, when we get into those matters is whether or not the resources you have could be relooked to respond more appropriating to some of the recommendations from the civil grand jury. in terms of you don't have to be doing badly to be doing better the question is not can we find
11:14 am
justification for explaining away but taking what they've given us and implementing to whatever degree including reallocating the resources in that effort >> thomas again. first, i'm troubled by the chair of this commission not being here for this important discussion. this hearing was noticed especially and it shouldn't have been noticed without the chair of the commission i'm disappointed in that regard and his absent sends a message to what you're responses are a going to be here today, i support the motion that i commissioner keane. you should fully agree with the recommendations and advise the
11:15 am
commission our moonlight under a code as to the proper responses you have to agree or disagree or partially disagree so if you looked at on page two of the grand jury recorded you'll see how you're to respond to the report. >> thank you. all right. i will call the motion all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i. >> opposed. motion is carried unanimously. finding response to understanding one a will be modified as so forth in the motion. there's been commissioner hayon has raised the issue where we're going to talk about every sentence in the response in
11:16 am
which case we may be here a long time if the commissioners want to do that or if we turn to what may be the key recommendations that is, i think the public is concerned that we ought to address. i will follow the commissioners. >> well mr. chair unless we're going to jet son the entire response and going and formulate a response based on what we think are the major policy questions that we want to talk about which i wouldn't have a problem with if we just jet residence the response we have in the draft i think that if we don't - if we don't do that then unfortunately, there's a lot of
11:17 am
language in here that i feel i have to take on and the commission should take on because there's a lot of that is simply inappropriate we've not put it out as a property draft and certainly i wouldn't want to adapt the rest of it without addressing some of the things i've got a half a dozen but. >> no, i appreciate that but i think we're mandated to respond to the finding and to the representations and we're mandated to do it by a certain date i believe did draft has been out for sometime and comments could have been made at
11:18 am
this point but in order to get a final draft there's got to be three of us to say we agree this letter goes to the superior court with our mandated response. i'll do that wherever way we feel comfortable >> despite my desire to do a bigger picture discussion i acknowledge we, you know, in the task we don't have a choice but to go through the language but perhaps go through each one to see if there are disagreement so if we can do that fiscally that would be great. >> well, i would propose to do let's go through the total
11:19 am
number one finding recommendation resolve that one and though i may not be required to do it i'll choose to get public comment before we vote on the entire body of one and go through each one of them. so you started on one a anyone have any other comments it goes through the recommendation >> yes. mr. chair, i have a comment on one c at the bottom. once again the language there right leg to do with confidentiality i agree we have a problem we can't disregard the
11:20 am
confidentiality i have a question that takes a shot at the grand jury it's not logical either where we go ahead and justifies certain acts we can't take because of our confidential requirements we add the last action the civil grand jury operates in confidentiality that's an apple and an orange the confidentiality requirements we very specific confidentiality requirements in the code itself. to say that whatever our confidentiality requirements are justified because of the civil grand jury operates in complete confidentiality the whole history of grand juries and the grand juries do thing is much
11:21 am
different to attempt to equality the work of the grand jury with the city commission and the way the grand juries operate themselves and back to the code therefore to use that as a justification is a little bit dwrand i don't say and it's not comparing two things because jngz operate with confidentiality so i just move to strike it sentence where the commission knows that the grand jury operates in complete confidentiality it's a comment that says nothing >> anyone on recommendation one? >> no wyoming that would be saying much my comments to the
11:22 am
language and number one mr. chair. >> any commissioners have any other proposed amendments other than number one. >> as amended i take you, you move we adapt the response to finding and recommendation number one with the ability to change that sentence. >> yes. >> do i have a second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i. >> does anyone want to comment on you're taking it out? i thought you were going to ask us to comment on all of one >> go ahead. >> one f has to do with the f p pc. and our investigation from the civil grand jury is that the f p
11:23 am
pc is prepared to accept a contracted for the local laws they have the same authority and open to the suggestions of the board of supervisors to create a similar arrangement for san francisco. so this statement says that it's possible the charter with prohibit a contract nothing in the statement that would prohibit that it says in - it says it's not allowed under the state law that's not what the agency told the grand jury because of our confidentiality but we can tell me they were authoritative figures it's not simply the sunset of san bernardino but other counties as
11:24 am
well has that authority. thank you. >> any other public comment? the motion it's been seconded. all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? all right. for finding and response to finding and representation number one approved unanimously to finding number 23 and the recommendations any commissioner have any comment on the draft language as to finding number 2? >> i have some questions mr. chair and if i may put them to the gentleman. in regard to number 2 the grand
11:25 am
jury talks about improper campaign contributions returned to the contractor would you tell us what those were >> i believe there's a number of instances we were thinking about money laundering situations where actually cases have been brought by others entities but the campaign contributions were returned. >> so the campaign contributes were returned but there was no action by this commission waving the forfeiture saying they could be returned. >> no one we found. >> i want to note that finding 2 and recommendation 2 we didn't
11:26 am
call for a response by the ethics commission on this particular item. there are other items in this draft. findings and recommendation number 7 and 18 >> number 78 and 18 did you say. >> yes. we didn't call for a response. >> is there some reason you didn't want a response to that? >> we're calling for an audit by the city attorney for example. there's just as one member of the commission i'd like to be educated in regard to those activities if the commission did act wrongfully and failed to do it's duty to
11:27 am
>> we didn't find any action by the committee all those things were recorded in the press, you know, they clearly were situations like in money laundering you know where you have an employer reimbursing employees for campaign contributions where the captions say we returned the contributions. >> did you find out anything before the money was returned or. >> i can't say. you you can't say because of the confidentiality or you just don't knows >> i don't know. >> is there a motion that the commission adapt vnth response to finding 2 and the
11:28 am
recommendation? >> i'm going to leave it the way it is you don't need another motion. >> i've been advised we don't need a motion we're going to adapt it at the end for all those who didn't make a change we'll make a general adaptation at the end. >> mr. chair, i hate to be a dog but we have language we're giving back to the grand jury even though we're not required to make the recommendation if we want to take that language out but we respond there's this response if the committee returns a corporate or excess contribution the return contribution is not subject for
11:29 am
for the it is your it clearly falls under the authority of the ethics commission for a reduction of the forfeiture it's almost like we're responding this thing it was okay for us to do that because someone gave it back and we had to - the power to wave it i move we striking it language out of our response. >> since they're not asking for a response i don't know what it says. >> are you saying based on what you've been told there the grand jury didn't ask us to respond to recommendation number 2 we eliminate it. >> yes. >> i would say eliminate or respond more directly we agree and would make a representation
11:30 am
to the board of supervisors to request an independent audit or we disagree we'll not make a recommendation so one of the two. >> i'd adapt commissioner andrews first recommendation that we agree because if this has been done and money has gone back which should have been for photo and it illegal went to someone other than going to the city which should get the money it should be exposed so i would agree with commissioner andrews that we agree with the city attorney that the board of supervisors requiring an independent audit to see whether or not anything of those things happened. >> can i comment. i don'tw


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on